[ExI] The Reality of Categories
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Mon Jul 16 11:41:08 UTC 2007
> Lee wrote:
>> Bryan writes
>> > It is my understanding that the physical system present in the
>> > universe could be defined via categorics,
>> Not quite sure what you mean by that, a sort of program perhaps?
> If we had the state of the universe at some moment, then we could
> classify groups of information.
It so happens that, taken literally, the author (of this book I keep
promising to describe further) would object strenuously to the
construction "if we *had* the state of the universe". One can
only have certain impressions at best, and even there I don't
think I'm being careful enough. Sorry if it emerges that I'm
being overly picky.
But "the map is not the territory" Korzybski would affirm, is
more than just a truism; it's a habit of thought. He went so
far as to believe that its total internalization was necessary
to sanity! :-)
> Admittedly this is risky since I am
> assuming we could access any such state or understand the format to
> parse it (perhaps this just adds to the strand of thought concerning
> action in the other thread on cryonics and ultracold quantum action).
I'm tentatively sticking to the idea of the "things-in-themselves"
"out there" fallling into natural categories. Stars---and I do not
mean our perceptions of them but the things in themselves---
are quite different nexi of the quantum fields that permeate all
of space from nearby regions where the fields seem to pretty
much cancel each other out.
>> > [On the other hand] Given meaning, our nonassignment
>> > would be meaningful in the 'bad' way.
>> Yes, a marked failure on our part to find the real meaning
>> that had been there all along. BTW, what has this to do
>> with a realist's query about whether categories are "out
> I was thinking of a correlation between categories and meaningful data
More information about the extropy-chat